Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The 5th international GPLv3 conference was held in Tokyo last week. I've made and published a transcript of Stallman's talk where he described the latest on what GPLv3 will do about the MS/Novell deal, Treacherous Computing, patents, Tivo, and the other changes to the licence. While I was at it, I made a transcript of my talk from the next day where I tried to fill in some info that Richard didn't mention."

The things that matter to Stallman at one moment in time will only become really important to the rest of us in 10 years or so.

Right now, software patents aren't being used against free software in any serious way, and DRM problems are localised to a few specific types of software. But that's all going to change with "trusted computing" and the inevitable war that corporations are going to wage against people who want to use free software on their machines.

Stallman is fighting back. Even if you think he's over the top, a free software fundamentalist who has gone too far in his preaching, you should still listen to him. He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.

Stallman is fighting back. Even if you think he's over the top, a free software fundamentalist who has gone too far in his preaching, you should still listen to him. He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.

I do think he's over the top (GNU/Linux? C'mon....) but reading this transcript has given me more respect for him. His opinions on 'Tivoisation' are quite interesting and probably my opinion and where I stand on the issue.

Changing the licence would require much more than finding all the contributors. It would require one of two extra things:1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.

That is NEVER going to happen. Seriously. There are too many groups within linux kernel development to ever get everyone to agree on that kind of thing. The FSF has a long habit of taking copyright from submitters, but that isn't the kind of th

That is NEVER going to happen. Seriously. There are too many groups within linux kernel development to ever get everyone to agree on that kind of thing. The FSF has a long habit of taking copyright from submitters, but that isn't the kind of thing you can add on later.

I didn't say it was going to happen or even that it was possible. I merely said that it raised a couple of interesting points. What happens if the GPL V2 is thrown out? Where are projects like the Linux Kernel then?

What happens if the GPL V2 is thrown out? Where are projects like the Linux Kernel then?

If the GPL v.2 is "thrown out" (presumably you mean "ruled invalid by a court"), the situation reverts to basic copyright law and all distribution is illegal.

Then, of course, the copyright holders would have to get together and agree on a new license in order to start distributing again (or they could make it public domain, but that would be their sole decision to make -- not the court's).

Changing the [Linux] licence... would require one of two extra things:

1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.

It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.

It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.

Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.

That's right... many of the people commenting on his views of DRM simply haven't thought through the real implications. They think that DRM is about stopping some kids from copying music and video.

DRM is about forcing you to run particular EXACT code, and either not running at all or refusing to talk to you if you are not. This also happens to be the essence of DRM too... so it's a happy coincidence for the pro-DRMer within the technology companies.

Treacherous Computing is hardware that is meant to allow person X to set their hardware up to refuse to run (or not cage) software that is not digitally signed by them. As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security. HOWEVER, the collection of companies making up the Trusted Computing Group (most of the tech companies) decided that the capability to TRUST should be reserved for them. You do not get to override it. This "trust" (only running approved code) starts with the BIOS, moves up to the kernel and in stuff like Vista it then moves into the media subsystem. In a few years, it will move into applications like web browsers, or word processors. Not running Microsoft Word? No you can't open that document, sorry. Add into this nasty mix, the ability of Trusted Computing hardware to execute code IN SECRET, and you have a control freak's wet dream. Not only can you not change what your computer does, you cannot even know what it is up to. The instructions are/can be encrypted.

Imagine it this way: a prison is very useful for keeping criminals in. It's not so good if YOU are the convict. In trusted computing as it is formulated today, YOU ARE THE CONVICT. You do not have the keys. Don't let them treat you like criminals. Demand the right to control your own PC -- you paid for it.

Trusted Computing is a political issue because it is a massive power grab by the technology companies. People may think Stallman is over-reacting, but I assure you that he is not. Look into the implications properly.

There is a huge number of crucial systems that are handled by computers connected to the internet -- including, but not limited to, power generation, banking, finance, telecommunication, and health care. Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured (and, in practice, security has been relatively lax), I think you underestimate the importance of security. The ris

I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. Neither I nor Stallman have any issue with someone deciding for themselves that their machine will only run software signed by them... or indeed, DECIDING to trust software from X. My machine could be setup to refuse to run software unless it has been digitally signed by me, and there would be no problem.

It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choic

It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choices taken away -- his trust is forced.

To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.

To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.

No, you don't understand. Treacherous Computing takes away power from you, the administrator (or owner) as well! The users won't be root, but neither will you. Microsoft will be root.

Let's use an analogy: say you're renting a house. Is it reasonable for the landlord to control the keys? I'd say yes, and I think you'd agree. Now, imagine that you own a house. Is it reasonable for the builder to control the keys? I'd say no. Do you agree?

So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.

"Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured"WRONG! there has been one, highly recommended and well known systematic way to ensure that these systems are secured:Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into.

If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet?

Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?

Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into. If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet? Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?

I agree, but remember Murphy's law -- the real version: "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way." If you're shipping control software that runs on commodity boxes (

He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security?
Ever heard of a botnet attack? (Granted, then it's not "every single user", it's a "sufficiently large number of users". Same principle.)

You know what? Treacherous Computing could be "fixed" by the addition of one thing: an "owner override." In other words, a mechanism to allow the owner of the machine to maintain control by having the ability to instruct the TPM to lie on his behalf. It would still allow all the nice "securing the critical systems" applications you mention, while making it useless for the totalitarian things like DRM.

So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.

So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.

I half agree. I would be in favor of an override if and only if any person enabling the override became legally and financially responsible for the results.

Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it.

"Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it."

Seems like this is the reason the owner-override idea is superfluous. You can presently implement some voluntary "trusted computing" stuff on your machines if you want to. 'Cause you're the owner. If you don't do such a thing, it's the same as if you override one that came with the box.

Treacherous computing is about changing where the buck stops. Changing the owner of the machine.

I would be in favor of an override if and only if any person enabling the override became legally and financially responsible for the results.

The person enabling the override would necessarily be the owner (or the owner's appointed agent, in the case of a company IT department, for example); nobody else would have sufficient access. And yes, typically owners are responsible for their property.

And to be fair, you would have to go up the chain as well, and make software companies legally responsible.

"Digital Rights Management" is a euphemism for a number of controls on copying and using data. DRM isn't about "forcing you to run EXACT code", it's about limiting what you can do with any given "something."

It all depends on exactly what the DRM is protecting, and what exactly it limits. Last time I checked, the iTunes DRM didn't keep me from running Linux - that's different than Palladium/Trusted Computing/whatever has people scared now.

There was a bit in there about a way of handling GPL violators who want to be able to redistribute again. According to Stallman, this is because when you redistribute without following the terms of the GPL, you lose any further right you have to distribute it, even if you comply with the GPL later on. In the article, he says he's not sure where the idea originated, but I suspect it's somewhere in the KDE camp, as this is where the idea that you need "forgiveness" from the copyright holder was first seen [linuxtoday.com]. The "cure" proposal would be a way of granting that forgiveness automatically.

Yup - several times in that articles in fact. The Mozilla license, the second BSD-license, the Apache license and the Eclipse license are all recommended or commended for various reasons.

It appears GPLv3 is trying to pull the best bits from other licenses into as generally applicable license as possible, rather than being specific to one software program. I doubt anyone will ever agree on how well it succeeds, but it's a good idea to try, I feel.

a conspiracy of companies to restrict the public - to restrict the public's access to technology. Such conspiracies ought to be a crime. The executives of those companies should be tried, and if convicted, sent to prison for conspiring to restrict the public's access to technology. However, that sort of policy would have required leaders that believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people. What we have today is government of the people, by the flunkies, for the corporations.

For a thought experiment, it would be fun to force RMS to run a company producing some hardware for a while.
There would need to be an incentive, say, the threat of being forced to use vi on Windows, or no technology at all, if he didn't dedicate himself sincerely to protecting shareholder value or expanding the market for the product.
Because, while I find myself admiring and agreeing with RMS quite often, I also feel that he fails to appreciate the merits of any opposing viewpoints. Experience beyond his catbird seat as chief agitator of the FSF might temper the fellow nicely.

In the quote given, RMS isn't critizing the companies. He is critizing the government. So yes, companines should try to maximize share holder value. But the government should protect the "people" since that is how they represent. Of course, it is us people that need to keep the government in line. So, I think he is smart enough to view his critism as being directed at people like me--those how don't vote.:-)

HP - HP Deskjet 1125c. Windows XP drivers are not available, because Windows XP includes drivers for this printer. Included driver sucks when compared with Win2k HP drivers and users use win2k drivers on winxp even when these drivers have q

Sir, you missed my point entirely.
I've had my share of scanners "go brick" because the driver fell out of currency.
The point is that the demonization of companies would have more weight if, to pick from your list, RMS had actual executive experience running a company like S3.
The GPL makes wonderful common sense, hence the existence of OSDL.
And I agree that, as a customer, it sucks to have hardware requirements unmet by the vendor.
However, I don't think my own "baby with a full diaper" arguments constit

You make the assumption here that a company must "protect shareholder value" (ie profiteer in an amoral manner) and "expand the market for the product".That's true of most public companies. However, it's quite possible to write a corporate charter that limits such things, introducing issues of social responsibility and ethical behaviour. You just need to do it early and make potential shareholders aware of the rules. Few people are willing to do this, since it removes their excuse to profiteer in the name o

2. What would the charter restrict anyway? Also how would it possibly be effective in a world where said company would have competitors? If I saw a company that had a charter I'd jump for joy because that would mean it would be very easy for everyone else to get rich at its expense by merely pursuing the business opportunities that it would explicitly forgo.

Charters can be changed at any time... if and only if you can get your shareholders to agree to it. It's quite likely you'll have to buy back a lot of shares to get a vote to pass. Starting out with a charter written to suit your goals avoids that problem.What would the charter restrict anyway?

Most importantly, it'd need to expand the definition of shareholder responsibility to allow for ethical behaviour and social responsibility to protect directors against lawsuits by shareholders unhappy that the chanc

The whole "protect shareholder value" bit is vastly over-rated by the general run of small investors as a legal excuse. Name a successful suit by shareholders against a corporate management that didn't do something to maximize profits because it was unethical or illegal. The majority of shareholder suits lose, and that includes more vaguely reasonable ones such as the Disney severance pay to Eisner lawsuit.
I just did a simple Google lookabout for currently as yet unsettled shareholder lawsuits. Nothing fancy, just typed in "Shareholder lawsuits", and then looked to see if the case appeared still in process. There were none mentioned on the first four pages (which is where I quit) that did not involve the board having allegedly either restated earnings and projected profits (always with a big decline in projected earnings) or incurred SEC fines. There's not a single one I could find this way that is even about a board simply having picked a bad business approach, so long as they did so openly, let alone one about not having entered any ethically 'gray' areas that could have led to profits. There are no shareholder lawsuits over such decisions as not laying off personnel in a decline, not selling non-exportable tech to nations on prohibited lists or other such actions revealed (at least in this search) either. I've heard of both such cases before, and am actually surprised that I couldn't find such a gase in the quick search. Still, I think this says something useful about how uncommon such cases are, at least.
In many states, the only way a court will even proceed with any shareholder lawsuit is if there is a SEC related decision first, and in some states, these decisions have to result in fines of various minimum values. In such cases, violating the law to maximize profits is the only way to become vulnerable to lawsuits over shareholder profits. That's right, in many cases, you have to break the law in an attempt to increase profits before you can be sued for the attempt failing! There, boards that use this as an excuse are saying, in effect, they had to give in before a threat that only becomes a threat if they give in! Amazing!

In over half of lawsuits of this general type, the shareholders sueing didn't do the most basic steps required before the court would even hear the case. For one example, many consistently failed to either try to get the board of directors to act on complaints before resorting to lawsuits, or to show the board was in some way biased or not sufficiently disinterested before proceeding to litigation. Of lawsuits that make it past such hurdles, most of the remainder failed automatically when the petitioner in effect asked the court to ignore that a violation of criminal law would be required for the board of directors to be in civil compliance. This frequently resulted in the suit being dismissed with prejudice.
A few years ago, a major shareholder in the pharma industry sued over just such an issue, claiming a corporation should have violated U.S. law by bribing Chinese (PRC) officials, since the fines would have been less than the profits. The arguements advanced got his lawyer disbarred, his own LLC dissolved and him convicted of racketeering so he could never form another one (at least in most jurisdictions).
That's doubtless an extreme case, but it shows the real problem here. Some people will sue over absurd, totally meritless claims, and concoct the most bizarre legal justifications. Some people will even go to civil court and argue their own case in such a way as to make it abundantly clear they are committing criminal acts, all the while thinking they are going to win big bucks. Some people will do the equivalent of shooting their parents and then absolutely demanding that the judge must show them mercy because they are an orphan.

Thanks for your very interesting comment. I'll have to do some digging myself, as I realised that I don't in fact have specific examples... and need to confirm that they do exist. While I acknowledged that the threat of such lawsuits are often just an excuse to do what the board want to anyway, I've claimed that there are real cases too, and should've had the evidence on hand to back that up.Spurious lawsuits can be a proplem, as you pointed out. I find it interesting that some US states have some level of

I'm unsure, given that he has not run one, that he has such an understanding. I suppose you could say that the FSF and any company, both being human organizations, share similarities.
I'd like to see the gentleman in charge of some profit-turning outfit for a while, though; it might help him more clearly define (and publish) his ethical system, such that it doesn't quite come off so much as "revealed truth" to the casual reader.

From gp: I also feel that he fails to appreciate the merits of any opposing viewpoints.
In particular, labelling anyone who doesn't agree with him "unethical", or hardware that doesn't toe his line as "treacherous". Plenty of people in proprietary land think themselves highly ethical; there needs to be more development of the idea of ethics before RMS's viewpoint amounts to more than a religious assertion.
The hypothesis behind my little experiment, Bart,

I always wondered how Tivo could use GPL'ed software that technically didn't violate the license but certainly tramples all over the spirit of it. If RMS feels so strongly about it, why didn't he (or anyone else, for that matter) go after Tivo?

Tivo distributes hardware capable of running the Linux kernel. Like the Xbox, it is hardware sold below cost in order to promote other services. If Tivo didn't restrict what kernel could be run to those signed by Tivo, people would buy the Tivo box, install a vanilla kernel and use it as a cheap computer. I'd hope most people can see why Tivo objects to that.

By releasing the source that they are required to release, they are allowing people to use and learn from their code, even if they cannot put it back

I understand that Tivo would like to make money on their investment. If you are suggesting that they should be permitted to misuse GPL software in that pursuit, I would have to disagree with you. If Tivo doesn't like the idea of people running whatever kernel they want on their hardware, let them write their own kernel and not subvert GNU/Linux. (Like that would stop experimenters...)

I disagree that they are misusing the GPL. The GPL is a software distribution license with no authority over hardware. As Linus Torvalds has pointed out, he signs every copy of the kernel he releases. If a hardware manufacturer decided to check for his signature before loading the kernel, then it is not Torvalds implementing the restrictions by signing the kernel, and the GPL only covers the distribution of the kernel, not the hardware that runs it. As I stated in my earlier post, people can still learn fro

"If you are suggesting that they should be permitted to misuse GPL software in that pursuit..."Tivo didn't misuse GPL software. Even RMS recognized in the speech that Tivo was in compliance with the GPL. RMS said:

"The Tivo contains a small GNU/Linux operating system, thus, several programs under the GNU GPL. And, as far as I know, the Tivo company does obey GPL version 2. They provide the users with source code and the users can then modify it and compile it and then install it in the Tivo."

The Linux kernel developers distribute a kernel capable of running on many platforms and which may be easily ported to others. Like many Free Software projects, it is software provided under the GPL. If the kernel developers didn't restrict what people could do with their code when they distributed it under the GPL, people would take the Linux kernel, install it on hardware that restricts what can be run on it and benefit from not having to develop all the code them

If tivo wants to be non-free then tivo should develop their system from the ground up. The use of the kernel and possibly other gpl software, I don't own or know tivos well, against the idea of the GPL, even if there is a loophole is a treason to the people who worked in those programs.Neuros is doing the thing right, as far as I can see, it is launching an open-source toolkit and allowing people to hack their hardware to do what ever they want. They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers eve

They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers every month with a service that would not be necessary at all if the hardware wasn't closed.

That is an excellent point. The Tivo Service that I pay for every month really isn't worth the cost, as I get a virtually identical service free with my MythTV box. What I pay for is really the whole "Tivo Experience", which is really becoming worth less and less as time goes on. When my MythTV box becomes as easy to use (for the family, not me...

If Tivo did not use GPL Linux then they would have to develop their own operating system to run on their hardware, or buy one from someone else. They have chosen to use Linux because it is cheaper for them to do so and because it gives them an edge in a competitive market.

The whole point of the GPL - see the printer driver story [blogspot.com] - is that end-users should be able to modify AND USE software released under the license. The deal is "if you use this software in your product, you're expected to give users that right.

Tivo have taken advantage of the benefits of Linux and found a legal loop-hole with which to weasel out of their responsibilities over the code. The cost of using GPL software on your hardware offerings is that users SHOULD be able to replace it on the hardware, regardless of how you feel about that. The Xbox is irrelevant in this case - it's fair enough that Microsoft deny Linux installations on their hardware, because they haven't benefited from the GPL in the first place.

The sum of the software I've released publicly amounts to a few Bash scripts, but if I were a Linux kernel developer who had purchased a Tivo I would be LIVID that my work had been used in this way, preventing me from modifying & using my own code, now resold to me installed on hardware I'd PAID good money for!!

Sure, the GPL v2 permits Tivo to restrict what kernel can be run on their hardware, but it's an unforeseen loophole - certainly against the original spirit of the GPL - and the contract should be changed.

Gee, thanks. Now that you've cleared that up, let me restate my question. There is a concept within criminal law that allows for criminal prosecution of a defendant even if he/she is technically not in violation of the written law. The example I hear about most frequently is the prosecution of possession of canibis indica when only the possession of canibis sativa is against the law.Is there such a concept within contract law? If a contract participate violates the spirit of the contract but not the let

If a contract participate violates the spirit of the contract but not the letter, can that be used as a basis for a contract dispute?

My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you're expected to address and clarify all your own concerns. Courts take a dim view of your discovering new subtleties or "violations of spirit" in your own words, as you had ample opportunity to make them clear to begin with. The other party gets more benefit

My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you're expected to address and clarify all your own concerns. Courts take a dim view of your discovering new subtleties or "violations of spirit" in your own words, as you had ample opportunity to make them clear to begin with. The other party gets more benefit of the doubt if he has a similar complaint against you, though.And, hence, the need for GPLv3. As these abuses of the GPL w

``There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD. Unfortunately, nearly all the versions that people use include non-free software, but basically they are free systems.''

Is that actually true? I don't use any non-free software. I know other people who don't, and other people who do. I know people who use mostly non-free systems. But what about the percentages? Time for a Slashdot poll?

Well, I have a Flash player installed, so it's not entirely free. And doesn't mplayer include proprietary libraries? And depending on how your definitions are, is any mp3 player free? I think not. Also, nVidia drivers on one box, ATI drivers on another... Sigh.

I think many people using a free OS on the desktop have at least things like that on there, possibly without being aware of it.

Well, if you consider that even the kernel provided by Debian includes non-free firmware, and those few distros that satisfy RMS's free standards are currently marginal (Utoto and Gnewsense), I'd guess most users of GNU/Linux are in fact using mostly free systems, not 100% free.

You can, with some effort and supported hardware, run a distro that satisfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that will still include non-free firmware.

Debian Linux is completely open source (or "Free", if you insist). The only reason it's not on the FSF's list is because the official debian servers have proprietary software (it's not inlcuded in the distro).

I think his point is that if you look at many of the Linux distributions, most include some software that's covered by a license other than ones that RMS would consider "Free." Recall that RMS distinguishes "Free" and "Open Source" software. So, if your favorite Linux distribution includes a copy of the Java VM, you no longer have a completely free OS. Another way this happens is when a hardware manufacturer distributes binary-only drivers.I'm interested in how you get along without any proprietary softw

I think your average Linux/BSD user is going to be in Mostly Free. My desktop has the Nvidia Driver and flashplayer to make things run. I just ordered a new Dell Laptop and it will need Ndiswrapper for the wifi. The OpenSource drivers are coming (broadcom chip) but even then I have to use some binary firmware.I also have Flashplayer on the system and (the real killer), Vmware with a Windows XP installation for times when a work app just needs windows.

``There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD. Unfortunately, nearly all the versions that people use include non-free software, but basically they are free systems.''

Is that actually true?

RMS is a little perverse about this, because to be otherwise would be to contradict his historical statements, and he's nothing if not stubbornly self-consistent (regardless of how appropriate that may be in any particular case).

His position is that you're using a system that "includes non-free softw

Plan 9 [bell-labs.com], and even moreso its derivative Inferno [vitanuova.com], is a "usable operating system" under most reasonable definitions. As are numerous of the others suggested.

How many people browse the web under Syllabe, Haiku, ReactOS, FreeDOS ???

Browsing the web is not the only important application of a computer. Saying there are two basically free operating systems, GNU/Linux and BSD is inaccurate in the same way as saying that there are three computer operating systems, Windows

``The basic idea of GPL version 3 is unchanged: to protect the four freedoms for all users, but the details have to adapt to today's circumstances.''IANAL, but the software developer in me says: if you want to ensure that the four freedoms aren't taken away, then that's what you ought to write. Instead of running after every special case (like bringing liquids on airplanes...err...different topic), why not simply write something to the effect that "by distributing the Software under this License, the Copyri

I am likewise not a lawyer (though I am a law student) and I think you are largely correct: specifically, the GPL ought to, if its goal is to protect the four freedoms and guarantee that that protection is passed on, do just that. It should define the four freedoms, license their exercise and explicitly disclaim any limitation on them based on any legal theory, privilege, or prerogatie available to the licensor, whether existing or arising in the future, and require those distributing derived works to use t

RMS is an excellent philosopher. He is the man we as programmers, nerds, and thinkers always should listen to very carefully. RMS has some bugs for sure but you can work around them.I wonder sometimes how computing would be if he wouldn't be so hard fighting for digital freedom. GNU/Linux would not be here today. We would have to use mainly proprietary software. Even for your web applications it would be hard to get one free.

Even if you don't agree with RMS you always should at least read and listen what he has to say. And make arguments why you don't agree, don't simple say he is ******.

I'm very happy that once again he defends FREEDOM with GPL 3 and will make the company's who want to use copyleft software play nice with you and me. I hope we (nerds, programmers, it-users) will use GPL 3 and help RMS. It is after all in our best interest to do so.

I can see already the RMS bashers are out in force, but after reading this article I thought it came off as very reasonable in comparison to many other speeches. Sure there was the 'GNU/linux' thing and a short rant against open source, but that is all old hat really.

All I can see here is him talking about cleaning up the language of the GPL so that is works better in various countries and making sure it's properly compatible with other important free licenses, like the Eclipse and Apache license. That's important stuff. Some stuff about making unclear things clear, and setting it up so that you can more easily and clearly add additional rights, such as if you are using the GPL for a font set you made you can explicitly say that documents using that font can be under any license the document creator wants (which isn't a problem really, but it makes some people nervous so you can be explicit if you want).

I'm not sure what all the ranting here about RMS not having to work for a living is coming from, except maybe jealously. He's making a decent living at doing what he loves, which I thought was what we all want. Good for him, I hope someday to have a career as successful and important as his.

You act like he's living the high life or something, he speaks that way because that is what he truly believes in. He supports himself with awards, speaker fees, but guess what, if he didn't take the positions he does he wouldn't win awards and no one would want to hear him speak. Consequently thats how he makes his living.

From his Wikipedia article:Stallman maintains no permanent residence outside his office at MIT's CSAIL Lab,[28] describing himself as a "squatter" on campus.[29] He owns neither an automobile, common in pedestrian-friendly Cambridge, nor a cell phone, having stated his refusal to own a device with proprietary software.[28] Because his "research affiliate" position at MIT is unpaid,[30] he supports himself financially with speaker fees and prize money from awards he has won.

Funny how his money in his bank and investment is invested and managed by proprietary software.Guess that is different somehow.

As is the software running the trains and planes he rides in, the software used by the government that collects his taxes, the software that... you get the idea. It's not possible for RMS to control the software used by other people, he can only control what software he uses and encourage others to use non-proprietary software. I suspect that if he could find a bank that used only Free Software, he'd use that bank. Actually, so would I... not out of opposition to proprietary software but because a bank that is so-enlightened would probably be a good choice in other ways. I'd expect them to have better security than most other banks, for example.

If you disagree with his stance when it comes to software licensing, you as a developer can easily avoid it: don't use software released under the GPL.You're not forced to release your code under any of his licenses. If you're doing open source development, there are numerous other licenses you can use, including the BSD license, the Apache license, the Artistic license, and the X11 license. Of course, you can always get your lawyers to roll you your own special license.

Working on such systems becomes a royal pain in the ass after you've become used to the software development freedom of open source, a cause that Stallman has given decades of his life to.

No, he has not. He has given that time to FREE SOFTWARE, and if you use the words 'open source' in his presence, he'll throw a hissy fit and insist you rephrase your statement before he will even talk to you further.

Um, yeah. That's the point of updating the license - something was "wrong" with it because it technically allowed something that was against its intended spirit. So they are working on a new version.They'd love to create the perfect license that covers all forseeable an unforseeable possibilities. They've done a pretty good job so far; version 2 has sufficed for over 15 years. They are being very cautious taking their time with v3 to make sure they "get it right" addressing v2's perceived shortcomings a

Think about how you'd "upgrade" a license. Does it even make sense to release software saying "this is released under a license that is not yet written?" Let's just say that you do, but the new license contains features you disagree with. OK, so you feel bad and your software is licensed inappropriately. But what about the 'consumer' of your license, who thought he was getting it under these specific conditions, and those conditions have now been taken away?

Well, it makes me wonder why Microsoft can't simply buy the FSF for 10 billion dollars just to own the FSF name, and then write GPL v4 granting all software ownership options exclusively to Steve Ballmer. It's nice to think the foundation wouldn't be misused in that way, but I don't see a guarantee.

``A lot of programs use the "or latest version" anyway so changing this to "GPL latest version" might be a way to keep dynamic threats to software freedom at bay.''It also means you're putting your trust in the FSF. You know what the license terms are today...but you have no idea about tomorrow. The new license could allow your program to be used in ways you would never have supported...and you couldn't do anything about it, because you've given the FSF the power to dictate the terms and change them at will

Serious question - will there be a GPLv3 fork of the Linux kernel? I know that Torvalds is dead against the idea, but an independent fork could be created if enough kernel contributors would agree to dual-licence their code.

Sure, unless there happen to be some major kernel contributors who wrote huge chunks of the kernel who are dead set against the idea, that could work.

I don't think you can call something a "fork" anymore when you have to rewrite the entire thing from scratch to avoid having it be a derivative work of Linus' original code.

Serious question - will there be a GPLv3 fork of the Linux kernel? I know that Torvalds is dead against the idea, but an independent fork could be created if enough kernel contributors would agree to dual-licence their code.

I don't think you would need to get permission for dual-licensing.

Doesn't GPL2 allow you to redistribute the software as long as it is covered by GPL2 **or any subsequent version of the GPL**?

Doesn't GPL2 allow you to redistribute the software as long as it is covered by GPL2 **or any subsequent version of the GPL**?

No. Licensing your code as GPL2 allows it to be redistributed as GPL2. Licensing your code as "GPL2 or any later version" allows it to be redistributed as GPL2 or any later version.

In other words, the statement indicating what license you're using occurs outside the license itself. When making the kernel, Linus chose to license it as "GPL2 only," which means redistribution as GPL3

No, but GPLv2 permits you to license your software that way. You must do this in a separate statement. GNU releases typically put this in a file called COPYRIGHT; COPYING tells you to refer to the GPL and LICENSE contains it.

It sounds like you're just uninformed, rather than trolling, so thought I'd correct you.

You have always been able to download any version of SUSE and distribute the GPLed components according to the GPL, for the last several versions the non-oss components have been moved out of the core distribution and are on an additional CD/repository you may use if you wish , so there is not even any "extraction" required. Even the enterprise version is freely downloadable, but don't expect to get a free support con

http://www.novell.com/products/server/eval.html [novell.com] and http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/eval.html [novell.com] You get 60 days of free update subscriptions, or you can continue to use without support, or find someone else to support it. Also SUSE Linux/openSUSE is exactly the same codebase as the enterprise version, so if you want free updates you can use that. The enterprise versions are targetted at businesses which want support contracts, they are the same distribution.

This is a limited evaluation version. I was asking for one I can keep forever, modify, distribute, etc.The same for RedHat.I think it is ok to take a 3rd party open source product and sell support for it. But I think it is unethical to convert it to closed source (although perhaps it is legal -- in fact it seems it is if they do it and don't get sued). I want to be able to tell SuSE and RedHat: "your product is based 99% on community work, please make your best work available to all, don't just give us the

No it is not limited in any way, only the amount of time you get free updates for is limited, the product is not limited in any way. You can also find a 3rd party to give you the support if you wish, for example centos for RHEL. Also as I said, SUSE Linux/openSUSE is the same codebase as the enterprise SLE product, the difference is that one is marketed at businesses who need the subscription, the other is targeted at people like you who don't, the product is the same.

The root cause is that the GPL allows for the existence of non-free distros (Novell and RedHat are the ones I know)

Dude, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is provided as source at Red Hat's site. There is at least one large, easy to use distribution which takes those sources and rebuilds them after removing any Red Hat trademarked logos. That distribution is CentOS [centos.org]. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is completely free and GPL compliant. I recommend the contract-supported RHEL for customers that need that support, or need the certification on particular hardware for compliance issues and I recommend CentOS for customers that are comfortable dealing with (or paying me to deal with) a lot of extra issues.

Your statement that RHEL is non-free is thus completely false and demonstrably so.

Further RHEL, unlike SLES, is not complicated by an unclear patent-deal with Microsoft which seems to open Novell and Novell's customers to arcane legal threats due to implicit admission of the existence of infringement of Microsoft patents.

Add to this that Fedora Core is almost completely paid for by Red Hat in terms of infrastructure and developers and is also completely Free and I think that your comment if not a troll is unbelievably off-base.

"For example, multi-region DVD players. If the content makers had their way, multi-region players wouldn't exist. They do exist because consumers realise that multi-region is better than single-region, creating a demand. That in turn produced an incentive for manufacturers to make them."But try to get one in the US: illegal.

If Universal Studios made DVD players, would they be multi-region or not?

So if my Tivo doesn't have "skip the intro" and I want to put that BACK IN, then I need a key to sign my code so